Ntia special Publication 94-30 a technical Report to the Secretary of Transportation on a National Approach to Augmented gps services



Download 3.42 Mb.
Page9/13
Date23.04.2018
Size3.42 Mb.
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13

4.3  Summary of Results
Tables 4-18 through 4-21 summarize the results of the technical capabilities evaluation for each mode of operation: aviation, marine, land, and survey. The table for each mode summarizes the evaluations for that mode and indicates whether a system meets the requirements for all phases of that mode of operation. Each entry in Tables 4-18 through 4-21 indicates a "YES" if the system meets all the requirements and a "NO" if the system does not meet all the requirements.

Table 4-18. Augmented GPS System Evaluation, Aviation, Summary


Phases

USCG

USCG(E)

FM

WAS-1

WAS-2

WAS-3

WAS-4

WAS-5

WAS-6

CORS

Loran-C

Oceanic En Route


NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

Domestic En Route

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

Terminal

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

Non-precision App. and Land

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

Category I App. and Land

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

All Phases

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

Table 4-19. Augmented GPS System Evaluation, Marine, Summary

Phases

USCG

USCG(E)

FM

WAS-1

WAS-2

WAS-3

WAS-4

WAS-5

WAS-6

CORS

Loran-C

Harbor/Harbor Approach


YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

YES

Coastal

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

YES

Ocean

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

All Phases

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

YES

Table 4-20. Augmented GPS System Evaluation, Land, Summary

Phases

USCG

USCG(E)

FM

WAS-1

WAS-2

WAS-3

WAS-4

WAS-5

WAS-6

CORS

Loran-C

Highway

NO

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

Highway (Collision Avoid)


NO

NO

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

NO

NO

Railroad

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

Railroad (Control)

NO

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

YES

All Phases

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

Table 4-21. Augmented GPS System Evaluation, Survey, Summary

Phases

USCG

USCG(E)

FM

WAS-1

WAS-2

WAS-3

WAS-4

WAS-5

WAS-6

CORS

Loran-C

Land Survey


NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

Hydro Survey

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

Deformation Survey

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

Mapping

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

All Phases

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO




4.4  Conclusions
Table 4-22 summarizes the system evaluation for all modes of operation. It illustrates that no single augmentation system meets the requirements of all modes of operation. For the land mode, no system evaluated can meet the collision avoidance requirements of land users because of the high availability requirements of railroads (100%) or the high accuracy requirements nationwide (1 meter).

Table 4-22. Augmented GPS System Evaluation, Mode, Summary


Mode

USCG

USCG(E)

FM

WAS-1

WAS-2

WAS-3

WAS-4

WAS-5

WAS-6

CORS

Loran-C

Aviation

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

Marine

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

YES

Land

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

Surveying and Other


NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO



5




EVALUATION OF

AUGMENTED GPS ARCHITECTURES

The results of Section 4 indicate that no single proposed system meets all Federal user requirements. Further, no system evaluated can meet the collision avoidance requirements of land users because of the high availability requirements of railroads (100%) or the high accuracy requirements nationwide (1 meter). All other user requirements can be met through a combination of systems, referred to as an architecture. Architectures include systems which individually meet the Federal user requirements for one or more modes: aviation, marine, land, and/or survey.



5.1  Eliminating Systems
Four systems were not considered for the development of composite architectures:
1) FM.

2) WAS 5.

3) WAS 6.

4) Loran-C.


The reasons for excluding these systems are explained in the following paragraphs:
1) FM — FM subcarrier systems do not provide the integrity, availability, and coverage required by aviation and marine users. FM subcarriers may not provide coverage for marine and land users in rugged or remote areas. FM stations cover approximately 80% of the area of North America. Subcarriers broadcast over a smaller area than the complete coverage provided by the FM station. Some FM stations in remote areas do not operate 24 hours a day, and are the only stations available in that area.
2) WAS 5 — Private, GEO satellite-based systems do not meet the integrity and availability requirements of aviation.
3) WAS 6 — Because of the premium that the study team attached to early realization of the benefits available from augmentation systems, LEO satellite-based systems were excluded because of their uncertain time frame of availability and a lack of data concerning the systems.


Overall, private systems such as FM, WAS 5, and WAS 6 have not been designed or developed as navigation aids supporting safety of life operations. Futher, private system providers are not willing to accept liability inherent with navigation systems use. If private systems were to be chosen as part of a navigation architecture, Federal cooperation, support, and regulation would be necessary to ensure integrity, availability, and continuity of service.
4) Loran-C — A Loran-C system cannot meet aviation integrity and availability requirements. Additionally, the role of Loran-C in a satellite-based navigation system is under study at this time. Use of Loran-C as an additional ranging signal in an integrated navigation system has been proposed, but to date, no empirical data is available. Research on the use of Loran-C in a GPS-based system continues.
Combinations of the remaining systems were used to develop composite architectures.

5.2  Composite Architectures
To meet the requirements of the various Federal users, any architecture will require at least two augmentation systems: one primarily focused on the requirements of users operating on the earth's surface, i.e. land, marine, and survey users; and one primarily addressing the requirements of aviation users. It is recognized that some aviation users might employ the surface/marine local area system, and some land-based users might employ the wide area aviation system.
While any architecture requires at least two separate systems, there should be maximum commonality and sharing of resources between all elements to eliminate duplication of effort and resources. The study team proposed six potential architectures, each intended to satisfy as many user requirements as possible:
Architecture 1. This architecture, the baseline system, consisted of the GPS augmentation systems currently planned by USCG and FAA. It included the 61-site local area differential GPS (LADGPS) system currently being implemented by USCG for marine use, the FAA’s Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) as currently planned to satisfy aviation requirements for en route through Category I precision approach, and FAA's LADGPS systems to satisfy Category II/III precision approach requirements. All of the reference stations included in this architecture would be compliant with the Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) standard. Such stations would have the capability of storing a standardized set of data to support the widest possible number of post-processing applications. Although Architecture 1 did not satisfy many land transportation and survey requirements, it was included to provide a benchmark against which the remaining five, more viable, alternatives could be compared.


Architecture 2.  This architecture consisted of an expanded version of USCG's LADGPS system to provide nationwide coverage for marine and land users. It also included FAA’s WAAS as currently planned to satisfy aviation requirements for en route through Category I precision approach, and FAA's LADGPS systems to satisfy Category II/III precision approach requirements. All of the reference stations included in this architecture would comply with the CORS standard.
Architecture 3.  This architecture consisted of an expanded version of USCG's LADGPS system to provide nationwide coverage for marine and land users and a variant of FAA’s WAAS to satisfy aviation requirements for en route through nonprecision approach only. Category I, II, and III precision approach requirements would be satisfied by FAA's LADGPS systems. All of the reference stations included in this architecture would comply with the CORS standard.
Architecture 4.  This architecture included an expanded version of USCG's LADGPS system to provide nationwide coverage for marine and land users. It also included a modified version of FAA’s WAAS, which provided corrections at other than the GPS L1 frequency, to satisfy aviation requirements for en route through Category I precision approach. Category II/III precision approach requirements would be satisfied by FAA's LADGPS systems. All of the reference stations included in this architecture would comply with the CORS standard.
Architecture 5.  This architecture included an expanded version of USCG's LADGPS system to provide nationwide coverage for marine and land users. It also included a modified version of the FAA’s WAAS which would encrypt all of the corrections for increased security. The modified WAAS would satisfy aviation requirements for en route through Category I precision approach. Category II/III precision approach requirements would be satisfied by FAA's LADGPS systems. All of the reference stations included in this architecture would comply with the CORS standard.
Architecture 6.  This architecture included an expanded version of USCG's LADGPS system to provide nationwide coverage for marine and land users and to satisfy aviation accuracy requirements for Category I precision approach. It also included a variant of the FAA's WAAS to satisfy aviation requirements for en route through nonprecision approach. Category II/III precision approach requirements would be satisfied by FAA's LADGPS systems. All of the reference stations included in this architecture would comply with the CORS standard.
Architecture 6 was evaluated extensively as it appeared capable of meeting stated requirements at a lower cost than the other five architectures. In the course of the evaluation, it was found that possible interference of signal reception could occur to aircraft which were flying through conditions conducive to the creation of precipitation static (P-Static). While an extensive study had not been performed of this phenomenon, it raised significant concerns about signal availability. Consequently, Architecture 6 was not considered in the second stage of the decision matrix.

5.3  Architecture Evaluation
Each of the five remaining architectures were evaluated using the second stage of the decision matrix, which constituted a modified version of a classic multi-attribute utility analysis. The development of the decision matrix is described in detail in Appendix J. The second stage of the matrix consisted of a model with three major parameters: Performance, Cost, and Security. These parameters were broken down into several different factors, and each architecture was scored for each factor. A brief description of each of the factors and their scoring is provided below.
Performance Factors:
 Real Time Accuracy — This score reflects how well an architecture meets the real time accuracy requirements.
 Integrity (Time to Alarm) — The time to alarm score reflects how well a system provides timely warnings to users when the system or parts of the system should not be used.
 Availability — The availability score reflects architecture performance, without failure, over a one-year period. Availability is the probability that service, meeting the coverage constraints, will be available to the user.
 Time Frame of Availability — The score for time frame of availability reflects the ability of a system to meet an initial operating capability between 1996 and 1998.
 Coverage — The coverage score reflects the architecture's ability to provide service in a geographic area.
 International Compatibility — This score reflects how compatible and acceptable this architecture is to the international community. It includes compatibility with international standards and agreements, as well as ease of use in a seamless worldwide infrastructure.
Cost Factors (estimated in FY 94 dollars):
 Infrastructure Cost — This cost score reflects the cost of initial implementation and the 20 year life cycle cost for the architecture.
 User Equipment Cost — This score reflects the cost of equipment to the user.

Security Factors:
 Access Control — This score reflects the capability to selectively deny unauthorized use through command and control features of the architecture.
 Level of Influence — This score reflects the level of political influence and managerial control the U.S. has over denying use of the architecture.
 Interdiction — The interdiction score reflects the U.S. and allied military forces' ability to deny any adversary's military use of an architecture's enhanced performance, through a nonelectronic physical means, within a theater of operations.
 Post-Decision Response Time — The post-decision response time score reflects the time required to implement denial once the decision to deny access to the architecture has been made.
 Jammability — The jammability score reflects the ability of U.S. and Allied forces to electronically deny an adversary's use of an architecture.
 Vulnerability of Denial — The vulnerability of denial score reflects an assessment of how easily the access control features of the architecture can be circumvented by unauthorized users.
Weights were assigned to each factor in the matrix as an indication of that factor's relative importance to the overall goals of this study. The weights for evaluation factors were developed in an iterative process by the study team and the Working Group.
The scores for the evaluation factor were multiplied by the weight assigned to the factor to obtain a weighted score. Overall Performance, Cost, and Security scores for each architecture were obtained by summing the weighted score column.
Scores, weights, weighted scores, and total scores for the various architectures are shown in Tables 5-1 through 5-3. Detailed explanations for the scores assigned to each architecture are contained in Appendix K.

Table 5-1. Weighted Analytical Decision Matrix — Performance







ARCHITECTURES



1

2

3

4

5




USCG+WAS-1


USCG(E)+WAS-1


USCG(E)+WAS-2


USCG(E)+WAS-3


USCG(E)+WAS-4




Evaluation Parameters

Weight

Score

Weighted


Score

Score

Weighted

Score

Score

Weighted


Score

Score

Weighted

Score

Score

Weighted


Score


PERFORMANCE

Real Time Accuracy


23.5

80

1880

80

1880

80

1880

80

1880

80

1880

Integrity (Time to Alarm)

21.5

100

2150

100

2150

100

2150

100

2150

100

2150

Availability

19.5

90

1755

90

1755

90

1755

90

1755

90

1755

Time Frame of Availability (IOC)

15.5

95

1472.5

90

1395

90

1395

0

0

0

0

Coverage

14.5

0

0

90

1305

90

1305

90

1305

90

1305

International Compatibility

5.5

95

522.5

95

522.5

85

467.5

88

484

30

165



Total Performance Score




7780



9007.5



8952.5



7574



7255


Table 5-2. Weighted Analytical Decision Matrix — Cost







ARCHITECTURES



1

2

3

4

5




USCG+WAS-1


USCG(E)+WAS-1


USCG(E)+WAS-2


USCG(E)+WAS-3


USCG(E)+WAS-4




Evaluation Parameters

Weight

Score

Weighted


Score

Score

Weighted

Score

Score

Weighted


Score

Score

Weighted

Score

Score

Weighted


Score


COST

Infrastructure Cost


50

20

1000

17

850

12

600

17

850

0

0

User Equipment Cost

50

14

700

14

700

9

450

9

450

0

0



Total Cost Score




1700



1550



1050



1300



0


Table 5-3. Weighted Analytical Decision Matrix — Security







ARCHITECTURES



1

2

3

4

5




USCG+WAS-1


USCG(E)+WAS-1


USCG(E)+WAS-2


USCG(E)+WAS-3


USCG(E)+WAS-4




Evaluation Parameters

Weight

Score

Weighted


Score

Score

Weighted

Score

Score

Weighted


Score

Score

Weighted

Score

Score

Weighted


Score


SECURITY

Access Control


37

0

0

0

0

50

1850

0

0

75

2775

Level of Influence

19

80

1520

80

1520

80

1520

80

1520

90

1710

Interdiction

14

0

0

0

0

100

1400

0

0

100

1400

Post-decision Response Time

13

80

1040

80

1040

80

1040

80

1040

80

1040

Jammability

11

5

55

5

55

100

1100

30

330

100

1100

Vulnerability of Denial

6

50

300

50

300

50

300

50

300

50

300



Total Security Score




2915



2915



7210



3190



8325





The five architectures are compared on the basis of performance vs. cost, performance vs. security, and security vs. cost in Figures 5-1 through 5-3. The upper right quandrant of each chart represents the location for the most desirable architectures. The numbers that label the data points on the charts correspond to the architectures referred to in Tables 5-1 through 5-3. The figures indicate that Architecture 2 provides the best performance vs. cost, Architecture 3 provides the best performance vs. security, and Architecture 3 provides an intermediate level of security at an intermediate cost.



















Download 3.42 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2020
send message

    Main page